Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
baker and george h.w. bush nsx 70 hageman of the world's nations. this subset can do that, we have seen a completely different scene and that is what i would describe as the 20 armors and three libraries and they've got about a dozen fires popping up here in different parts of the world. and oliver sudden, you have people who don't have -- a lot of people in congress who don't have the previous reference has basically come to the conclusion that the world is change and they really can't afford, nor do we have the public support for global engagement. when you go back home intact to people back home, it literally is like saying you need to diet and lose a lot of weight and i'll get a haircut or not solve the problem. the amount of foreign aid in person is shrinking to the point where it's relatively insignificant compared to the whole. yet the will to support that going forward into the event step out and say well, we are to be more engaged here or we can do more here or these are the functions that are working, it's hard to get public support for that. it's hard to get congressional sup
from george w. bush because it was the thing to do. numbers do not lie. he became very unpopular. parties do not have to embrace figures and politicians to become unpopular. my view is that a lot of distress over bush's domestic agenda from which they fled in 2005. it had been an ancillary result of failure to defend iraq and have a favorable recognition. >> what might have been a successful policy agenda? >> i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush which would be good for the country when it lost faith that he was managing the war effectively. he found it more difficult to get hearings on some of the issues. a lot of people on the right to it came at bush on a lot of these domestic issues. they were feeling extremely distressed about what was going on in the war and did not want to turn on the war. we have troops in the field. this seems like a noble endeavor. they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as a result of the republican party getting thrown on its heels of immigration, in 2006 i published a book on
: many people are saying that this president could use george w. bush on the issue of immigration because he is that as a key domestic agenda item on for his second term and he felt pretty good president bush help him on immigration with republicans? pick it'm sure he could is a question of whether he wants to play that role. there are plenty of other surrogates who could play this role, and the most important one is marco rubio, who was not only of hispanic origin, but also younger and can appeal to this whole dreamers movement, and he is right here in washington serving in congress and drafting legislation and working on a bipartisan basis. there is also a large number of democrats and republicans who, while we don't hear about it, are working behind the scenes, like lindsey graham and charles schumer, on putting some kind of legislation out there. certainly bush, he decided to step forward, could play a constructive role. it is not like he is going to let democrats just because he decided to put himself out there on the issue. it would only help in terms of bringing republicans on boar
president george w. bush did, referred to as number 43 in texas, dallas, texas. number 43 had 60 straight months of economic growth. 60 straight months of economic growth with the underpinning of reducing taxes so that americans would go and work harder and see the incentive for creating jobs and would want to buy into the philosophy that the harder that we work, our country benefits. . ed underpinnings of social security, of medicare, of medicaid systems that are very important to our country. reducing the number of people who have to receive government assistance is what happens when you have job growth. protecting the long-term interest of this country and growing the american dream. the gentlewoman from houston is absolutely correct, and the methodology towards getting there is not higher taxes, it is not higher spending, it is giving more freedom and opportunity. it is having a reduced size of the government, not a bigger government. it is giving people an opportunity to have fewer rules and regulations, not more rules and regulations. so the process that the republican party believe
that that money is being effectively used to address certain things. george w. bush, i give him significant credit for the that far -- because they have set a certain standard, that these are our values, these are our standards, if you are able to enforce and implement those standards, we will provide you that support. there are some very good success stories there. it is a difficult climate with which to go back home and tell people that it works and it is and our national interest and we have a moral commitment on some of the tragic things that are happening, for example nutrition and disease and so forth. but as we see what is happening now in africa, and the threats there any changes that are taking place, africa suddenly has become a place where we have more interest. chuck was deputy secretary -- i got my acronyms maxed -- mixed up. he spent a lot of time looking at africa from the standpoint of his position in europe, kind of foreshadowing what was to come. and pleading, i think, for engagement in dealing with what was happening there. now we are seeing some of the consequences of all of th
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5